One of the ongoing debates in the comments section is the value to society of children. I generally argue kids are expensive and a burden on society, Mr Bettor argues that kids pay for themselves when they become tax producers. With that in mind I give you Octamom:
“In Nadya’s view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program … and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare,” he said. “They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare.”
In my view that is definitely welfare.
NBC chief medical editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman has estimated the cost of delivering the infants and caring for them until they are healthy enough to leave the hospital at $1.5 million to $3 million.
No wonder hospitals are so crowded, the staff is busy taking care of Octamoms litter.
The bigger point from this, Octamom is not a productive member of society either, so not only is she not working but she is producing children that are draining medical resources from other people. When her children enter their teens they will probably start having kids and become a drain on society as well. At no time does this kind of person produce more than they use.
At a minimum the doctor who allowed this to happen should lose is medical license and hopefully it will make people re-think fertility treatment in general. The world has a enough people we don’t need to artificially create more.
I’m not for single moms on IVF gone wild, JR. Darwinists are more for rape than I am for octamom.
So we are both in agreement that Octamom and her litter may not be a net benefit to society?
Sure, lots of people free-ride and rent-seek in society. They tend to be either politicians or folks on the dole, though.
Without the deadweight costs of politicians and the fat safety net afforded to Octamom, the costs of her brood will plummet.
Are you coming out for the dissolution of entitlement programs JR?
I think the problem with entitlement programs is that they favor people who have children. Somehow we need to get rid of the incentives for people like Octamom. This would start by eliminating any subsidies for the fertility industry and in Octamoms case better access to mental health services might have helped.
This is crazy – the science is dangerous. Time to regulate the fertility clinics!
I have read a few interviews with Octamom she seems nuts and the dpctors that helped her have some serious problems as well.
JR: What is your suggestion for funding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and repaying the debt, if not passing on those costs to future generations?
If we stopped wasting so many resources on the Ocyamoms and Bristol Palins of the world it would be much easier to plan for retirement and health care for productive members of society.
At this point medical resources are used up by all the large families as are educational resources. The US has a population problem, especially a problem with over population in the 0 to 18 age group until we stop that resources will continue to be sqandered preaparing the next generation,
Could this question be more dodged?
We should become used to the notion that our earnings contribute to the lives of our elderly and poor…it’s the right thing to do.
Hey CB:
Part of the reason the social safety net is so stressed is that people are hav ing lots of kids and these kids are expensive in terms of medical care and social costs. Of Sarah Palins five kids are any of them a benefit to society?
The idea that we need to produce people to pay into social security doesn’t make much sense, if the US finds itself with a shortage of people we can allow more immigration. The world is not in danger of running out of people.
JR: Most of medical expenditure is spent in the last 6 months of individuals’ lives. The government subsidies come from productive workers who pay taxes–who are not in the last 6 months of their lives. Where do those payees come from?
This is simpler than simple math. Why the resistance to the facts?
The other question might be “where do all the old people come from?”.
Any way you look at it people are expensive and it is foolish to keep encouraging people to have more of them.
If people cost $2 million in their lifetime but produce $2.5 million, then I’d say we should have more of them, not less.
You have to look at the damage each person does to the enviroment plus the amount of non renewable resources they consume.
At some point we wont be able to feed the ever growing population not to mention the fact that too many people use up resources and make the world a less enjoyable place to live.
JR, the damage to the environment and non-renewable consumption are included in the costs. Thomas Malthus was wrong, and so was Paul Ehrlich.
Each additional person puts more pressure on limited resources driving the price up more and using up more of the supply. At some point additional people stop paying for themselves. Many countries are already at that point and the US is getting close to that point.
If the US had a third less people we would not be dependant on petroleum based farming(that is petroleum based fertelizer and long supply chains) to feed our population. We also could supply electricity in more earth friendly manners. As it is now we can barely supply enough energy to keep up with the needs of a growing population and that means making good choices like solar and wind but also probably trying unproven and expensive sources like nuclear energy.
The reason that we are running out of good choices is that we have too many people and they are stressing out the entire system. We need the ad council to start making ads about the problems of big families. Then again maybe not, the anti-smoking ads produced by the ad council make me want to smoke, who knows what anti-procreation ads would make people want to do.
JR, the prices for resources increase with greater demand and lesser supply. That regulates consumption. Gasoline demand turned out to be a whole lot more elastic than most economists thought when crude cracked $100/bbl.
Of course, the government could distort the price mechanism, for example, in artificially inflating home prices with easy monetary policy, irresponsible lending incentives, conflicted rating agencies, and a mortgage workout plan.
Oh, you might be right. But lets reduce government first, before indulging any eugenic fantasies, ok?
I don’t usually have eugenic fantasies but I would like to see policies that encourage people to stop at maybe one or two children. Plus free vasectemies to anyone who wants one and easy and affordable birth contro for all.
I agree that government policies policies can have a bad effect, although I would argue that some of the worst policies are in response to the overpopulation situation no one wants to talk about.
i feel like she should have mental exaime to see if she is fit to take care of 14 kids what i have seen its not stable